Re: [Phys-l] Bad physics in National park

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 05/22/2009 11:03 AM, pschoch@nac.net wrote:

> I would try to find the person responsible and speak with them.
.....
> Making the effort at change is never a 'lost cause'. 

Agreed!  This is true and important.

>  If we keep at it
> long enough, we can make sure that everyone 'gets it right'.

Well, not quite "everyone", because there are a few dyed-in-the-wool
crackpots out there.

Also, I don't feel obliged to debug every site in the world myself.
I prioritize.  I don't bother with low-traffic sites.  Conversely
if the site _looks_ like somebody cares about it, I'm more likely
to send suggestions.

=================

I get hundreds of comments per month about my web site.  A goodly
number of them are specific, constructive suggestions ... in which
case they get incorporated into the site within minutes, usually.

As for questions, the first time a question comes up, I just answer
it by email.  If however there is persistent confusion about a 
particular section, I will rewrite that section to make it less
confusing.

To encourage this, I put my email address on every page on the site,
so people don't need to wonder where to send comments.

I get a few cranks, but not as many as you might think;  only a few
percent of the total traffic.  It's funny how certain subtopics are
crank-magnets;  nearly 100% of the "suggestions" I get concerning
the Coanda effect are from people who do not have any idea how wings 
work nor any idea what the Coanda effect is, yet insist they can
explain wings in terms of Coanda.

I have always tried to be polite to everybody, including the cranks.
This paid off handsomely once upon a time.  Some guy wrote in saying
my discussion of this-or-that was all wrong.  I wrote back asking him
to supply more technical detail as to what was the right answer and
why my approach was wrong.  I expected never to hear from him again,
because cranks tend to avoid technical detail.  But the guy replied
a few minutes later, quoting chapter and verse from Perkins and Hage.
I wrote back the next day, saying I had rewritten several long sections
and added two new diagrams, and asking him to check it out.  He was
happy.  He liked the new figures.  I am really really glad I didn't 
disregard his initial brusque, cranky-seeming message.